Quote from: VisionStorm;1135181As is your right as a GM. But if you want to use your Viking Hat to kick players out, perhaps you should consider the more effective strategy of using it instead to set your campaign standards and expectations up front, rather than whine that people with a superior grasp for game mechanics exist.

I have. For decades. And I still get the same type of players who look to publically masturbate with the system. Rather than actually play with the group.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1135206I have. For decades. And I still get the same type of players who look to publically masturbate with the system. Rather than actually play with the group.

I think the perfect reason to play a game, is to have fun.  I don't want to memorize hundreds of pages of rules, I want to read a few pages and start playing.  As a DM, maybe 10 to 15 pages and start playing.  Min Maxing doesn't appeal to me.

Quote from: Razor 007;1135233I think the perfect reason to play a game, is to have fun.  I don't want to memorize hundreds of pages of rules, I want to read a few pages and start playing.  As a DM, maybe 10 to 15 pages and start playing.  Min Maxing doesn't appeal to me.

It does appeal to some people though, and thats okay, sometimes its fun to just let peoplw go wild...or just let them play like, godbound or something.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1135181Like begets like. I almost never see min/maxers tout their superiority or belittle others for not sharing their gaming habits or criteria, yet I can't join a conversation about RPGs, particularly online, without running into someone whining about min/maxers and portraying them as this somehow subhuman (despite having superior talents for optimization) class of gamers worthy of scorn....

I'm calling BS on this one.  I've seen and heard plenty of conversations online and elsewhere, where minmaxers talked crap about other players who couldn't make "effective" characters.

Some people like to start with a character concept and get as close as they can to it with their game system.  Other people like to start with the system and make as powerful a character as they can with it.  Both approaches are fine, but they don't go well together.  I prefer the former approach so I generally avoid playing with those who take the latter.

Quote from: Mishihari;1135256I'm calling BS on this one.  I've seen and heard plenty of conversations online and elsewhere, where minmaxers talked crap about other players who couldn't make "effective" characters.

What?  Gamers talking crap about how their way is the best way?

Say it is not so!

Quote from: ZetaRidley;1135078I think the thing I'm tired of is not finding a system that I click with I guess. I've been running 5th edition, and the players like it, but the thing just feels antithetical to everything I've ever really done before. I hate hate hate the skill system in it. Its too narrow. Also hate the lack of really any system other than exploration and combat stuff. Not that you need a system to do social things, but it would help when your players are interested in trying to gain skill in artisan and craftsman type stuff.

Also, sick of WotC and their shit. 5th edition has been okay, I like a lot of its mechanics, but the dearth of content is just, meh. The modules have been pretty solid, basically mini campaigns. Some more settings and splat books would be nice.

Also, really tired of getting interested in running a Palladium game, and then remembering that the system is shit, and will always be shit.

On the last point, that's what generic systems are for. Eg D6 and Mini Six for cinematic, BRP or maybe GURPS for a more grounded feel. No system covers all genres/tones but I think it's much easier to convert material than learn a new system.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1135118Min-maxers. I'm just fed up with them. They turn the whole situation into an arms race that the GM is forced to keep up with. And frankly, it is tiring to put up with their bullying need to make the game group bow to them.

It's a group activity. Don't want to play like it is? Then there is the door!

I have gotten too old to put up with bad players. And that's what min-maxers are. BAD PLAYERS!

I have no problem with an honest min-maxer, at least they create effective characters who can achieve things.

Quote from: Altheus;1135261I have no problem with an honest min-maxer, at least they create effective characters who can achieve things.

But that is never their goal. Their goal is invariably to bully the rest of the group into doing exactly as they do. And in doing so, they subvert the entire group activity to their will.

This is why I will never believe in an "honest min-maxer". Because their actions show anything but honesty.

IME, powergaming/min-maxing isn't so bad if everyone's on the same page. Nowadays I find that it almost always comes with a degree of dishonesty which poisons the whole lot of it.

Surely, there are systems that don't offer as many bells and whistles to min-maxers.  Run one of those systems.  It will be less likely to attract the min-maxer crowd.

I have embraced the idea that my character is not a superhero, because that's not the type of game I want to play.

I prefer min-maxers over players who insist on making useless characters for reasons and feels.

The first as others have pointed out can actively contribute at the table. The second not only complains about being useless they expect the other players to help them overcome their characters being useless. For example taking a low Str character and then complaining that they cannot hit or damage a creature than whine and complain that the min-maxer can. While also expecting the other players to be their pack mules.

The sad part is some here don't understand what a min-maer is. I can build a D&D Fighter with average to above average stats and take the bread and butter feats and still be told I'm min*maxing. As everyone else was told by the DM it would be a combat oriented campaign and they decided to build pure rileplaying character who cannot hit or damage anything.

Quote from: Scrivener of Doom;1135064I can't handle Gary Gygax being referred to as some sort of authority on game design and/or the game business. He wrote OD&D. It was a mess. That's forgivable as it was new. He then wrote AD&D. It was a bigger mess. That was unforgivable, especially as he pontificated about how there was "one true way" that he had written... somewhere beneath the layers of contradictions and chaos. Not to be outdone, after catching lightning in a jar with D&D, he then shot diarrhoea through a straw with Dangerous Journeys, Cyborg Commando, and some other crap I have erased from memory.

I wanted to by DJ yet after seeing that it continued Gary love of charts, charts and more charts! i passed on it. As you said at the times the earlier stuff he published and his flaws were excusable. Except he just insisted on repeating those same flaws and attitudes in later products. I just do not understand tSR allowing the 1E dMG to be published with Gary essentially telling the DM to punish any player who owns a copy of the DMG. Who writes that in a product you want players to buy and who players need to become DMs. Gary is and was a micromanager of the highest caliber and it shows in his early writing. The DM has control at the gaming table for the most part I don't need their damn permission to buy a product away from the tale.

As for gate keeping it does happen yet to the extent some here and elsewhere want to push in their carefully constructed personal narratives is what bothers me. With one bad experience they never returned to the hobby and proof positive that their is a secret conspiracy to keep them out. Call them out on not trying another gaming table and suddenly one is victim blaming. I was rejected many times when I was younger asking women for dates. If I behaved the same way I would never talk to women let alone ask them out.

Quote from: sureshot;1135434I prefer min-maxers over players who insist on making useless characters for reasons and feels.

The first as others have pointed out can actively contribute at the table. The second not only complains about being useless they expect the other players to help them overcome their characters being useless. For example taking a low Str character and then complaining that they cannot hit or damage a creature than whine and complain that the min-maxer can. While also expecting the other players to be their pack mules.

The sad part is some here don't understand what a min-maer is. I can build a D&D Fighter with average to above average stats and take the bread and butter feats and still be told I'm min*maxing. As everyone else was told by the DM it would be a combat oriented campaign and they decided to build pure rileplaying character who cannot hit or damage anything.

That sounds like an episode of, "Queer Eye for the Crippled Paladin".

Quote from: Spinachcat;1135138Being a Palladium gamer requires zen...and it's worth it.

Deep breath.
Accept the system is shit.
Accept that Kevin will NEVER change.
Accept that the slightest balance was never the goal.
Accept that you will hammer the system to make it work at your table.
Exhale.
Now go play your favorite Palladium game and have a great time.  

I don't know why and I don't know how, but hot damn, Palladium freaking rocks at the table in actual play if you have a good group.

Funny thing is I've been working on a rewrite of the system, basically taking the core ideas like Strike, Parry and Dodge and Percentile skills. Basically codifying stuff and making it flow more. So far, its working.

Quote from: S'mon;1135259On the last point, that's what generic systems are for. Eg D6 and Mini Six for cinematic, BRP or maybe GURPS for a more grounded feel. No system covers all genres/tones but I think it's much easier to convert material than learn a new system.

Yeah, I get what you're saying there. I think the main thing is I would be okay with 5th more if it had a little more of 3rds skill system baked in, but that's just me.